Pro-lifers not folled by Giuliani - by Cal Thomas

Rudy Giuliani is playing the role of the contortionist in his attempts to convince enough pro-life voters to support his presidential candidacy.

After an unblemished record as a pro-choice mayor of New York City (if you count the "blemish" of babies not allowed to live), Giuliani surprised a lot of people when he said if he is elected he would name only "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court.

That sounded pretty good to some until Giuliani added during a recent CNN interview that he thinks a person who believes the Constitution should be interpreted as written could also vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade and that he supports public financing of abortions for poor women who want them.

Twisting himself even further, Giuliani said denying a poor woman tax dollars to pay for an abortion would deprive her of a "constitutional right".

While the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and a free press, it does not follow that the government should buy me a newspaper if I can't afford one. And as a strong supporter of Roe vs. Wade, why would Giuliani name judges who oppose it? Would a pro-life candidate be credible if he promised to name only judges read into the Constitution whatever he or she wished?

Giuliani claims that Roe vs. Wade established a "constitutional right" to abortion. The Court, unable to find that "right" clearly stated anywhere in the Constitution, finally concluded that it was implied in the 14th Amendment, which protects one's right to privacy, or in the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights.

Abraham Lincoln dealt with the danger of reading into the Constitution ideas and supposed right that are not therein his brilliant speech at Cooper Union in New York on Feb. 27, 1860. Addressing the issue of slavery and whether it should be allowed to spread outside of those in which it was then practiced, Lincoln said: "An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not 'distinctly and expressly affirmed in it 9Chief Justice roger Taney's decision in Dred Scott contends that it was). Bear in mind that the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is 'distinctly and expressly' affirmed there - 'distinctly', that is not mingled with anything else - 'expressly', that is in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning."

Lincoln's point was there are no distinct words in the Constitution expressing the right of a human being to own another human. the Taney Court had to misread the Constitution in order to assert such a "right," which is what the Court did in Roe vs. Wade a cenrury later.

i Giuliani believes in a strict constructionist interretation of the Constitution, he could not support abortion, because a strict Constructionist does not find language supporting it. For hime to take the position he does on abortion and then say he would nominate strict constructionists to the bench twists him and the law into a pretzel.

CAL THOMAS writes for Tribune Meida Services. readers may email Cal Thomas at CalThomas@tribune.com